Apple.co.uk

[anthony]

It was a prenom and I think the Registrant has had it since the mid 1990s. Here is the first entry I found in archive.org from 1998 (14 years ago). Doesn't look like they're coming!

They might well be coming now! How ironic that the GIF for the 'click to enter' button on that archive link features an option for 'music, MP3 & more'. With all the activity between Apple Corp & Apple Inc. resulting in the 2007 agreement, and all the litigation that went beforehand highlighting rights held by Apple Corp at that time, I'd think that single archive link alone would be Apple Inc.s opener for ten to send in the lawyers.

 

[dotNetFreak]

It was a prenom and I think the Registrant has had it since the mid 1990s. Here is the first entry I found in archive.org from 1998 (14 years ago). Doesn't look like they're coming!

They will eventually. It's completely nuts that they haven't attempted to purchase it before (or have they...?).

They might well be coming now! How ironic that the GIF for the 'click to enter' button on that archive link features an option for 'music, MP3 & more'. With all the activity between Apple Corp & Apple Inc. resulting in the 2007 agreement, and all the litigation that went beforehand highlighting rights held by Apple Corp at that time, I'd think that single archive link alone would be Apple Inc.s opener for ten to send in the lawyers.

Er...?

I somehow doubt that an image advertising Yep.com from 14 years ago that happens to mention "Music + MP3's" would have anything to do with anything tbh... Unless I completely misunderstood your point?

 

[dotNetFreak]

No idea if they have, but assume not or original poster possibly wouldn't even be posting here. "Eventually" might not be quick enough for existing registrant. Apple Computer's lawyers may simply have looked at it and thought "genuine site, genuine Registrant entity, and doesn't infringe". Nobody can categorically say that Apple Computer will come and, if they do, they'll offer any thing substantial because they've managed fine without it so far. How does them not having it, given its present form, affect them?

Correct, nobody can say that they will definiately come.

Apple.fr, Apple.de and Apple.ie all divert to Apple.com but provide localised information. As a UK visitor I have to go to Apple.com and then select that I'm from the UK... Wtf?

If I take the other top 10 global brands, every single one owns the .co.uk and every single one diverts to localised information.

They just look like a bunch of muppets by not owning it IMHO.

 

[binny]

Why do Apple need this domain? Good reasons? The fact they are a big company isn't a reason.

 

[Rob_F]

You'd have to be pretty thick or desperate to sell it for anything less than six-figures if everything is as it appears.

i.e.

1. The original registrant is the same as the current one.

2. The domain has been in use since it was first registered back in Jan 1996, and the business behind the site is and always has been genuine.

3. There isn't any unknown pieces of the picture that that might affect your position in a negative way E.g. you have been calling/writing to them every two months since 2001 trying to sell it them for offers over 10 million.

Don't get too greedy. Let then come to you, don't approach them. I think they will come, eventually – if they haven't already approached you.

I'd also suggest that you request that this thread be deleted as it could/might be used against you. It certainly won't help.

- Rob

 

[mat]

It’s quite interesting to look at some of the links they have picked up over the years from major news sites by mistake.

 

[Alien]

You'd have to be pretty thick or desperate to sell it for anything less than six-figures if everything is as it appears.

i.e.

1. The original registrant is the same as the current one.

2. The domain has been in use since it was first registered back in Jan 1996, and the business behind the site is and always has been genuine.

3. There isn't any unknown pieces of the picture that that might affect your position in a negative way E.g. you have been calling/writing to them every two months since 2001 trying to sell it them for offers over 10 million.

Don't get too greedy. Let then come to you, don't approach them. I think they will come, eventually – if they haven't already approached you.

I'd also suggest that you request that this thread be deleted as it could/might be used against you. It certainly won't help.

- Rob

Super advice.

 

[Rob_F]

Of course you are right, Invincible. You always are.

- Rob

 

[js1]

You'd have to be pretty thick or desperate to sell it for anything less than six-figures if everything is as it appears.

i.e.

1. The original registrant is the same as the current one.

2. The domain has been in use since it was first registered back in Jan 1996, and the business behind the site is and always has been genuine.

3. There isn't any unknown pieces of the picture that that might affect your position in a negative way E.g. you have been calling/writing to them every two months since 2001 trying to sell it them for offers over 10 million.

Don't get too greedy. Let then come to you, don't approach them. I think they will come, eventually – if they haven't already approached you.

I'd also suggest that you request that this thread be deleted as it could/might be used against you. It certainly won't help.

- Rob

Agree with Alien, great points...

 

[Jambo]

appleagency - Last Activity: 01-03-2012 11:15:19 AM (Thursday morning).

Is anyone else going to bother rewriting what's already been posted, just in a different form, or is the general consensus that everything has now been covered?

I think this would be a good thread to bookmark and revisit at various points in the future (assuming it's still here).

Just one more from me.....

You'd have to be pretty thick or desperate to sell it for anything less than six-figures if everything is as it appears.

Not sure I agree with that. Apple do have a history of pissing money about but I really think the OP will struggle to sell to anyone other than Apple Inc. I mentioned earlier Apple have applied for a European Community trademark in almost every class. To put that in to perspective that's classes:

01, 02, 03, 04, 05, 06, 07, 08, 09, 10, 11, 12, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45

And covers almost every industry. The domain can only be sold to someone (other than Apple) operating in an industry that isn't covered and has no glimmer of overlapping in to an industry that is.

As it stands I don't think not having the domain is costing Apple too much so I'm not sure they'd pay 6 figures for it, especially if they've not made ANY offers for it to this point. (maybe they have but not that we know of)

It looks like Apple are just waiting for the OP to make a mistake.

I don't think he could sell the business as a whole as the domain is registered to the OP personally so if he is self employed he is just going to be selling assets. The domain is then exposed to legal challenge under any of the registered classes (that's if the registrations are accepted of course). Any non Apple Inc buyer is taking a MASSIVE risk and I think the only thing keeping the domain with the OP is that he registered before any relevant trademark was/would be registered.

So I just think if Apple don't necessarily need it, it's not doing them any harm and is unlikely to fall in to the hands of anyone else, why pay 6 figures for it? I guess crazier things have happened. Just look at The Beatles (Apple Corps) case.....

 

[Jambo]

Even though the domain name is registered to an individual, there's enough evidence to demonstrate that it has been used by Apple Agency since at least 1998. Based on this I cannot see a problem with it being transferred to Apple Agency Limited (which appears to be the name of the company on face value if you look up "apple agency limited" on Google). Then the company could be sold in whole or in part if the shareholders so wished.

I think there is even a risk there unless it is done before any of that list of classes is registered. I expect class 42 might cover some of the work they carry out at Apple Agency and it would be a transfer of an asset from one legal entity to another, the owner is no longer the same. Perhaps Nominet may take the view that there is no bad faith as it is a change of business structure (or something) but if it went to court it may be a different story. I think the registration date would no longer be a factor in any case and the limited companies acquisition date would become the date in question

It would definitely be an interesting case. Have you ever seen any disputes that have arisen out of a transfer from an individual to a limited company they represent? I actually have a similar situation where I have a domain I believe to be stuck in my company. Although it didn't when I registered it the domain now includes a trademark and I think if I transfer it to myself or a new company I am opening I will probably lose it.

 

[Jambo]

If the transfer was made and everything else carried on as it is now, with Apple Agency Limited operating with its current directors, shareholders and staff, doing the same kind of trade, what has really changed?

The legal owner of the domain name has changed. I know what you are saying but look at this scenario. Let's say Apple Inc have their community trademark application registered on Monday.

Then on Tuesday the OP transfers the apple.co.uk domain to Apple Agency Ltd.

I believe Apple Inc will then accuse Apple Agency Ltd of infringing their trademark in class 42 as it was registered earlier than Apple Agency Ltd's acquisition of apple.co.uk. I think the OP being a director of Apple Agency Ltd will bear no influence as both are separate legal entities.

I'm just saying class 42 for the sake of the example as it includes "graphic design for the compilation of web pages on the Internet" so they may argue that's what the illustrations are being used for. But they may find a more appropriate infringement. They actually do already have a trademark registered covering class 42.

Why don't you take legal advice for your situation. Without knowing all the facts it is difficult to comment.

Yes, I am seeking further legal advice on my situation but it's quite complicated. I'm looking at challenging the trademark that was registered too and made an interesting discovery tonight. Unfortunately I don't have Apple's legal budget though.

 

[Jambo]

A very quick search of Google finds Apple Agency Limited's incorporation date being within 1997. Without going through pages of evidence, let's presume that there is plenty of evidence from the incorporation date demonstrating Apple Agency Limited's use of the apple.co.uk domain name as it is being used now. That is despite the individual, who I am presuming is heavily connected with Apple Agency Limited, being the actual registrant. A change of registrant will not wipe out that prior usage by Apple Agency Limited. The current registrant could, hypothetically, be at deaths door or retiring, so could elect to transfer the domain name to another individual (e.g. partner) involved with Apple Agency Limited. Again the usage doesn't change, therefore I don't believe just a registrant change would "reset" things and present a case of trade mark infringement. In my opinion this is no different to the existing registrant deciding to roll the domain name into a limited company because it isn't unusual, or unfair, for any sole trader to decide to do that whilst remaining involved in the same course of business. Sole traders convert over to LTD's all the time.

I could probably dig out plenty of examples of trade marks granted on terms where a similar domain name had been registered and put to genuine use prior. If the use doesn't change I don't believe that an existing registrant can suddenly find themselves with a business they cannot sell as a going concern just because it is associated with a domain name that is similar to trade marks registered after its inception.

I'm not sure that the company having used the domain is relevant. It doesn't own the domain. To be stuck with a business they can't sell (along with the domain) would be the (unfortunate) fault of the domain owner. They should have transferred it to the company much earlier if they wanted it to be an asset of the company.

Maybe they would get away with it since it is clear Apple Inc is not in the business of commissioning illustrations but I think it is pretty risky and could get messy. Who knows what tricks their legal team have been cooking up?!

 

[anthony]

The registrant details have been changed recently ...

http://who.is/domain_archive-uk/apple.co.uk/

Given that the company itself is still active, looks as is the Director has tired of waiting for an approach via the company itself and is now hoping he'll be approached as an individual. Can you imagine the frustration of no offer over all those years, no surprise that he's changed the reg status to see if Apple might bite.

 

[anthony]

There are people among us that look for and report domains whose registration details infringe Nominets T&C's. Nominet then write to the registrant before suspending and ultimately deleting names that aren't brought into line. Perhaps that was the reason.

In which case I suggest someone may have pointed out the anomaly to Nominet, prompting the registrant to correct the whois. The company was only registered in 1997, so he seems to have been the registrant from the prenom era.

 

[Jambo]

I think the opposite and consider it very relevant. What if one company licensed the use of a domain name from another company and then eventually decided to buy the registration? Based on your reasoning, if a trade mark had been granted in between, they couldn't. That would be legally ridiculous. In respect of apple.co.uk and Apple Agency Ltd, effectively the domain name is being licensed from the individual registrant by the LTD.

Yeah I think if you are using the mark in commerce then you would have rights. My concern was that the company may already be infringing on Apple Inc's trademark. But it looks like this was not the case as Apple would have taken legal action whilst the domain was owned by the company which we now know was the case quite recently.

It's interesting to see that in the whois archive the registrant is the individual and not the Ltd company. I wonder what difference that makes if any.

Anyway it's a really complicated case which has MELTED my brain! I'll defo keep an eye on it!

 

[eddieb]

Also consider making a list of other potential suitors because it doesn't matter who you sell the domain name to as long as you are happy with your return. Apple Computer may not be interested at a price that suits you.

Here's another suitor to start you off with: http://www.applecorpsltd.com/

I would approach these first, then approach Apple Inc

 

[Bailey]

I haven't read all the posts in this thread - but lets not doubt that the Apple reference we all know so well (no not the bloody fruit) would indeed love to just add this to their holding - just as a common sense redirect, if nothing more.

Asking Apple inc if they would indeed be interested is likely to get a "polite - How much?" response. So ball stays firmly in your court on this one.

Do Keep us updated

On some of the comments regarding ownership details. (From Company to an individual ownership) I believe "from my own experience that transfering the domain and therefore rights of ownership comes down to a number of elements and isn't necessarily the can of worms that some portray. Most of the obvious questions just roll/role out from common-sense, particularly if someone has held a directorship

 

[newbie]

Mmm.. Lovely domain... I'd be nervous though, one wrong move and a DRS may hit the mat. With unlimited budget for experts and appeals etc... I'd be nervous but a nice name!

 

[anderow]

Mmm.. Lovely domain... I'd be nervous though, one wrong move and a DRS may hit the mat. With unlimited budget for experts and appeals etc... I'd be nervous but a nice name!

Indeed.
I think it's a bit of a poison chalice this name.
Apple may buy it, on the other hand they may not be interested, or if they are annoyed they will get their lawyers involved...which could be very expensive indeed for the seller.